Respondeo dicendum quod Annuntiatio congruo ordine per Angelum est perfecta. Tria enim Angelus intendebat circa virginem. Primo quidem, reddere mentem eius attentam ad tantae rei considerationem. Quod quidem fecit eam salutando quadam nova et insolita salutatione. Unde Origenes dicit, super Luc., quod, si scivisset ad alium quempiam similem factum esse sermonem (utpote quae habebat legis scientiam), nunquam eam, quasi peregrina, talis salutatio terruisset. In qua quidem salutatione praemisit idoneitatem eius ad conceptum, in eo quod dixit, gratia plena; expressit conceptum, in eo quod dixit, dominus tecum; et praenuntiavit honorem consequentem, cum dixit, benedicta tu in mulieribus. I answer that, The Annunciation was made by the angel in a becoming manner. For the angel had a threefold purpose in regard to the Virgin. First, to draw her attention to the consideration of a matter of such moment. This he did by greeting her by a new and unwonted salutation. Wherefore Origen says, commenting on Luke (Hom. vi), that if she had known that similar words had been addressed to anyone else, she, who had knowledge of the Law, would never have been astonished at the seeming strangeness of the salutation. In which salutation he began by asserting her worthiness of the conception, by saying, Full of grace; then he announced the conception in the words, The Lord is with thee; and then foretold the honor which would result to her therefrom, by saying, Blessed art thou among women. Secundo autem, intendebat eam instruere de mysterio incarnationis, quod in ea erat implendum. Quod quidem fecit praenuntiando conceptum et partum, dicens, ecce, concipies in utero, etc.; et ostendendo dignitatem prolis conceptae, cum dixit, hic erit magnus; et etiam demonstrando modum conceptionis, cum dixit, Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te. Second, he purposed to instruct her about the mystery of the Incarnation, which was to be fulfilled in her. This he did by foretelling the conception and birth, saying: Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, etc.; and by declaring the dignity of the child conceived, saying: He shall be great; and further, by making known the mode of conception, when he said: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee. Tertio, intendebat animum eius inducere ad consensum. Quod quidem fecit exemplo Elisabeth; et ratione ex divina omnipotentia sumpta. Third, he purposed to lead her mind to consent. This he did by the instance of Elizabeth, and by the argument from Divine omnipotence. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod animo humili nihil est mirabilius quam auditus suae excellentiae. Admiratio autem maxime attentionem animi facit. Et ideo Angelus, volens mentem virginis attentam reddere ad auditum tanti mysterii, ab eius laude incoepit. Reply Obj. 1: To a humble mind nothing is more astonishing than to hear its own excellence. Now, wonder is most effective in drawing the mind’s attention. Therefore the angel, desirous of drawing the Virgin’s attention to the hearing of so great a mystery, began by praising her. Ad secundum dicendum quod Ambrosius expresse dicit, super Luc., quod beata virgo de verbis Angeli non dubitavit. Dicit enim, temperatior est Mariae responsio quam verba sacerdotis. Haec ait, quomodo fiet istud? Ille respondit, unde hoc sciam? Negat ille se credere, qui negat se scire ista. Non dubitat esse faciendum quod, quomodo fieri possit, inquirit. Reply Obj. 2: Ambrose says explicitly on Luke 1:34, that the Blessed Virgin did not doubt the angel’s words. For he says: Mary’s answer is more temperate than the words of the priest. She says: How shall this be? He replies: Whereby shall I know this? He denies that he believes, since he denies that he knows this. She does not doubt fulfilment when she asks how it shall be done. Augustinus tamen videtur dicere quod dubitaverit. Dicit enim, in libro quaestionum veteris et novi Test., ambigenti Mariae de conceptu, possibilitatem Angelus praedicat. Sed talis dubitatio magis est admirationis quam incredulitatis. Et ideo Angelus probationem inducit, non ad auferendam infidelitatem, sed ad removendam eius admirationem. Augustine, however, seems to assert that she doubted. For he says (De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. li): To Mary, in doubt about the conception, the angel declares the possibility thereof. But such a doubt is one of wonder rather than of unbelief. And so the angel adduces a proof, not as a cure for unbelief, but in order to remove her astonishment. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Ambrosius dicit, in Hexaemeron, ob hoc multae steriles praevenerunt, ut partus credatur virginis. Reply Obj. 3: As Ambrose says (Hexaemeron v): For this reason had many barren women borne children, that the virginal birth might be credible. Et ideo conceptus Elisabeth sterilis inducitur, non quasi sufficiens argumentum, sed quasi quoddam figurale exemplum. Et ideo, ad confirmationem huius exempli, subditur argumentum efficax ex omnipotentia divina. The conception of the sterile Elizabeth is therefore adduced, not as a sufficient argument, but as a kind of figurative example: consequently in support of this instance, the convincing argument is added taken from the Divine omnipotence. De Filio Dei incarnato The Incarnate Son of God Quaestio 31 Question 31 De materia de qua corpus Salvatoris conceptum est The Matter from Which the Savior’s Body was Conceived Deinde considerandum est de ipsa conceptione salvatoris. Et primo, quantum ad materiam de qua corpus eius conceptum est; secundo, quantum ad conceptionis auctorem; tertio, quantum ad modum et ordinem conceptionis. We have now to consider the Savior’s conception. First, as to the matter from which His body was conceived; second, as to the author of His conception; third, as to the manner and order of His conception. Circa primum quaeruntur octo. Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry: Primo, utrum caro Christi fuerit sumpta ab Adam. (1) Whether the flesh of Christ was derived from Adam? Secundo, utrum fuerit sumpta de David. (2) Whether it was derived from David? Tertio, de genealogia Christi quae in Evangeliis ponitur. (3) Of the genealogy of Christ which is given in the Gospels; Quarto, utrum decuerit Christum nasci de femina (4) Whether it was fitting for Christ to be born of a woman? quinto, utrum fuerit de purissimis sanguinibus virginis corpus eius formatum. (5) Whether His body was formed from the purest blood of the Virgin? Sexto, utrum caro Christi fuerit in antiquis patribus secundum aliquid signatum. (6) Whether the flesh of Christ was in the patriarchs as to something signate? Septimo, utrum caro Christi in patribus fuerit peccato obnoxia. (7) Whether the flesh of Christ in the patriarchs was subject to sin? Octavo, utrum fuerit decimata in lumbis Abrahae. (8) Whether Christ paid tithes in the loins of Abraham? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum caro Christi fuerit sumpta ex adam Whether the flesh of Christ was derived from Adam? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caro Christi non fuerit sumpta ex Adam. Dicit enim apostolus, I Cor. XV, primus homo de terra, terrenus, secundus homo de caelo, caelestis. Primus autem homo est Adam, secundus homo est Christus. Ergo Christus non est ex Adam, sed habet ab eo distinctam originem. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ’s flesh was not derived from Adam. For the Apostle says (1 Cor 15:47): The first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly. Now, the first man is Adam: and the second man is Christ. Therefore Christ is not derived from Adam, but has an origin distinct from him. Praeterea, conceptio Christi debuit esse maxime miraculosa. Sed maius est miraculum formare corpus hominis ex limo terrae quam ex materia humana, quae de Adam trahitur. Ergo videtur quod non fuit conveniens Christum ab Adam carnem assumpsisse. Ergo videtur quod corpus Christi non debuit formari de massa humani generis derivata ab Adam, sed de aliqua alia materia. Obj. 2: Further, the conception of Christ should have been most miraculous. But it is a greater miracle to form man’s body from the slime of the earth, than from human matter derived from Adam. It seems therefore unfitting that Christ should take flesh from Adam. Therefore the body of Christ should not have been formed from the mass of the human race derived from Adam, but of some other matter. Preaterea, peccatum in hunc mundum intravit per hominem unum, scilicet Adam, quia omnes in eo gentes originaliter peccaverunt, ut patet Rom. V. Sed si corpus Christi fuisset ab Adam sumptum, ipse etiam in Adam originaliter fuisset quando peccavit. Ergo peccatum originale contraxisset. Quod non decebat Christi puritatem. Non ergo corpus Christi est formatum de materia sumpta ab Adam. Obj. 3: Further, by one man sin entered into this world, i.e., by Adam, because in him all nations sinned originally, as is clear from Rom. 5:12. But if Christ’s body was derived from Adam, He would have been in Adam originally when he sinned: therefore he would have contracted original sin; which is unbecoming in His purity. Therefore the body of Christ was not formed of matter derived from Adam. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Heb. II, nusquam Angelos apprehendit, scilicet filius Dei, sed semen Abrahae apprehendit. Semen autem Abrahae sumptum est ab Adam. Ergo corpus Christi fuit formatum de materia ex Adam sumpta. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb 2:16): Nowhere doth He—that is, the Son of God—take hold of the angels: but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold. But the seed of Abraham was derived from Adam. Therefore Christ’s body was formed of matter derived from Adam. Respondeo dicendum quod Christus humanam naturam assumpsit ut eam a corruptione purgaret. Non autem purgatione indigebat humana natura nisi secundum quod infecta erat per originem vitiatam qua ex Adam descendebat. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut carnem sumeret ex materia ab Adam derivata, ut ipsa natura per assumptionem curaretur. I answer that, Christ assumed human nature in order to cleanse it of corruption. But human nature did not need to be cleansed save in as far as it was soiled in its tainted origin whereby it was descended from Adam. Therefore it was becoming that He should assume flesh of matter derived from Adam, that the nature itself might be healed by the assumption. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod secundus homo, idest Christus, dicitur esse de caelo non quidem quantum ad materiam corporis, sed vel quantum ad virtutem formativam corporis; vel etiam quantum ad ipsam eius divinitatem. Secundum autem materiam corpus Christi fuit terrenum, sicut et corpus Adae. Reply Obj. 1: The second man, i.e., Christ, is said to be of heaven, not indeed as to the matter from which His body was formed, but either as to the virtue whereby it was formed; or even as to His very Godhead. But as to matter, Christ’s body was earthly, as Adam’s body was. Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, mysterium incarnationis Christi est quiddam miraculosum, non sicut ordinatum ad confirmationem fidei, sed sicut articulus fidei. Et ideo in mysterio incarnationis non requiritur quid sit maius miraculum, sicut in miraculis quae fiunt ad confirmationem fidei, sed quid sit divinae sapientiae convenientius, et magis expediens humanae saluti, quod requiritur in omnibus quae fidei sunt. Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 29, A. 1, ad 2) the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation is miraculous, not as ordained to strengthen faith, but as an article of faith. And therefore in the mystery of the Incarnation we do not seek that which is most miraculous, as in those miracles that are wrought for the confirmation of faith, but what is most becoming to Divine wisdom, and most expedient to the salvation of man, since this is what we seek in all matters of faith. Vel potest dici quod in mysterio incarnationis non solum attenditur miraculum ex materia conceptus, sed magis ex modo conceptionis et partus, quia scilicet virgo concepit et peperit Deum. It may also be said that in the mystery of the Incarnation the miracle is not only in reference to the matter of the conception, but rather in respect of the manner of the conception and birth; inasmuch as a virgin conceived and gave birth to God. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, corpus Christi fuit in Adam secundum corpulentam substantiam, quia scilicet ipsa materia corporalis corporis Christi derivata est ab Adam, non autem fuit ibi secundum seminalem rationem, quia non est concepta ex virili semine. Et ideo non contraxit originale peccatum sicut et ceteri, qui ab Adam per viam virilis seminis derivantur. Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 15, A. 1, ad 2), Christ’s body was in Adam in respect of a bodily substance—that is to say, that the corporeal matter of Christ’s body was derived from Adam: but it was not there by reason of seminal virtue, because it was not conceived from the seed of man. Thus it did not contract original sin, as others who are descended from Adam by man’s seed. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum Christus sumpserit carnem de semine David Whether Christ took flesh of the seed of David? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non sumpserit carnem de semine David. Matthaeus enim, genealogiam Christi texens, eam ad Ioseph perduxit. Ioseph autem non fuit pater Christi, ut supra ostensum est. Non ergo videtur quod Christus de genere David descenderit. Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not take flesh of the seed of David. For Matthew, in tracing the genealogy of Christ, brings it down to Joseph. But Joseph was not Christ’s father, as shown above (Q. 28, A. 1, ad 1, 2). Therefore it seems that Christ was not descended from David. Praeterea, Aaron fuit de tribu levi, ut patet Exod. VI, Maria autem, mater Christi, cognata dicitur Elisabeth, quae est filia Aaron, ut patet Luc. I. Cum ergo David de tribu Iuda fuerit, ut patet Matth. I, videtur quod Christus de semine David non descenderit. Obj. 2: Further, Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, as related Ex. 6. Now Mary the Mother of Christ is called the cousin of Elizabeth, who was a daughter of Aaron, as is clear from Luke 1:5, 36. Therefore, since David was of the tribe of Judah, as is shown Matt. 1, it seems that Christ was not descended from David.